On This Day, April 3: Apple releases first iPad
April 3 (UPI) -- On this date in history:
In 1860, the Pony Express postal service began, with riders leaving St. Joseph, Mo., and Sacramento at the same time.
In 1865, as the Civil War drew to a close, Richmond, Va., and nearby Petersburg surrendered to Union forces.
In 1882, outlaw Jesse James was shot to death by Robert Ford, a former gang member who hoped to collect the reward on James' head.
In 1936, Richard Bruno Hauptmann was executed for killing the 20-month-old son of Charles A. Lindbergh.
In 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established Isle Royale National Park, a cluster of islands in Lake Superior situated between Michigan and Canada.
In 1944, in a case out of Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that barring Black Americans from voting violated the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In 1948, U.S. President Harry S. Truman signed the Marshall Plan, aimed to help European countries recover from World War II.
In 1989, Richard M. Daley was elected mayor of Chicago, the post his father, Richard J. Daley, had occupied for 21 years (1955-76). The new Mayor Daley was re-elected five times.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council passed a cease-fire resolution to end the Persian Gulf War.
In 1995, owners and players of Major League Baseball approved an agreement ending a 232-day strike that forced the cancellation of hundreds of games and the 1994 World Series.
In 1996, the FBI raided a Montana cabin and arrested Theodore Kaczynski, a former college professor, accusing him of being the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs had killed three people and injured 23 since the 1970s. Kaczynski was sentenced to life in prison.
In 1996, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and 32 other Americans died when their plane crashed into a mountain in Croatia.
In 2000, the Department of Justice ruled that Microsoft had become a monopoly and in the process, had violated U.S. antitrust law. Four months later the court ordered the breakup of the technology company.
In 2010, Apple released the first generation of its iPad and within a month had sold more than 1 million devices.
In 2016, the so-called Panama Papers, an unprecedented leak of millions of documents, revealed that politicians, prominent world leaders, and celebrities hid millions in secret offshore tax shelters to skirt tax laws.
In 2017, an explosion in Russia went off on the subway in St. Petersburg, Russia, killing 11 people and injuring several others.
In 2019, San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich was ejected after a record-setting 63 seconds into a loss against the Denver Nuggets.
In 2024, nine people died and nearly 1,000 were injured in a 7.4-magnitude earthquake in Hualien, Taiwan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
28 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Democratic governors will defend immigration policies before Republican-led House panel
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump spars with California's governor over immigration enforcement, Republicans in Congress are calling other Democratic governors to the Capitol on Thursday to question them over policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform posted a video ahead of the hearing highlighting crimes allegedly committed by immigrants in the U.S. illegally and pledging that 'sanctuary state governors will answer to the American people.' The hearing is to include testimony from Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Kathy Hochul of New York. There's no legal definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction, but the term generally refers to governments with policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Courts previously have upheld the legality of such laws. But Trump's administration has sued Colorado, Illinois, New York and several cities — including Chicago and Rochester, New York — asserting their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Illinois, Minnesota and New York also were among 14 states and hundreds of cities and counties recently listed by the Department of Homeland Security as 'sanctuary jurisdictions defying federal immigration law.' The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. As Trump steps up immigration enforcement, some Democratic-led states have intensified their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting cooperation with immigration agents. Following clashes between crowds of protesters and immigration agents in Los Angeles, Trump deployed the National Guard to protect federal buildings and agents, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom accused Trump of declaring 'a war' on the underpinnings of American democracy. The House Oversight Committee has long been a partisan battleground, and in recent months it has turned its focus to immigration policy. Thursday's hearing follows a similar one in March in which the Republican-led committee questioned the Democratic mayors of Chicago, Boston, Denver and New York about sanctuary policies. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades. In 2017, then-Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed legislation creating statewide protections for immigrants. The Illinois Trust Act prohibits police from searching, arresting or detaining people solely because of their immigration status. But it allows local authorities to hold people for federal immigration authorities if there's a valid criminal warrant. Pritzker, who succeeded Rauner in 2019, said in remarks prepared for the House committee that violent criminals 'have no place on our streets, and if they are undocumented, I want them out of Illinois and out of our country.' 'But we will not divert our limited resources and officers to do the job of the federal government when it is not in the best interest of our state, our local communities, or the safety of our residents,' he said. Pritzker has been among Trump's most outspoken opponents and is considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate. He said Illinois has provided shelter and services to more than 50,000 immigrants who were sent there from other states. A Department of Justice lawsuit against New York challenges a 2019 law that allows immigrants illegally in the U.S. to receive New York driver's licenses and shields driver's license data from federal immigration authorities. That built upon a 2017 executive order by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo that prohibited New York officials from inquiring about or disclosing a person's immigration status to federal authorities, unless required by law. Hochul's office said law enforcement officers still can cooperate with federal immigration authorities when people are convicted of or under investigation for crimes. Since Hochul took office in 2021, her office said, the state has transferred more than 1,300 incarcerated noncitizens to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the completion of their state sentences. Minnesota doesn't have a statewide sanctuary law protecting immigrants in the U.S. illegally, though Minneapolis and St. Paul both restrict the extent to which police and city employees can cooperate with immigration enforcement. Some laws signed by Walz have secured benefits for people regardless of immigration status. But at least one of those is getting rolled back. The Minnesota Legislature, meeting in a special session, passed legislation Monday to repeal a 2023 law that allowed adults in the U.S. illegally to be covered under a state-run health care program for the working poor. Walz insisted on maintaining eligibility for children who aren't in the country legally, ___ Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo. Also contributing were Associated Press writers Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, N.Y.; Steve Karnowski in St. Paul, Minn.; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Pure emotion' frequently drives debates on sports stadium deals
An aerial view shows Kauffman Stadium and Arrowhead Stadium in Missouri, home to MLB's Kansas City Royals and the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs, respectively. Lawmakers in both Kansas and Missouri have pursued legislation to make hundreds of millions of dollars available for sports stadiums. (Photo by DutcherAerials via Getty Images) In promoting his bill to fund professional sports stadiums, Missouri Republican state Sen. Kurtis Gregory warned about the potential hit to jobs and tax revenues if the state were to lose a team. But on the floor of the Senate last week, he acknowledged that pride was also a prime motivator in his efforts to make hundreds of millions of dollars available to the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs and MLB's Kansas City Royals, both of which are being courted to move several miles away into neighboring Kansas. A former University of Missouri football player, Gregory pointed to the Missouri-Kansas rivalry that dates back to the Civil War and characterized Kansas as 'kind of an archrival.' 'We just let the state of Kansas poach, you know, really the pride and joy of the western side of the state, and I would say the entire state of Missouri?' he said in his floor speech. 'And then I would also say, what's next? What's the next thing the state of Kansas is going to try and take from us?' Days after the 2025 legislative session ended in May, Missouri Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe called a special session for lawmakers to consider stadium funding and disaster relief bills. Last week, the state Senate approved Gregory's stadium incentives bill in the middle of the night by a 19-13 vote. On Wednesday afternoon, the state House approved the measure by a 90-58 vote, sending it to the governor's desk. The bill would fund up to 50% of construction or renovation costs and is estimated to cost about $1.5 billion over 30 years, the Missouri Independent reported. Stateline was unable to reach Gregory for comment. Economists have panned the ongoing stadium bidding war between Missouri and Kansas — which has offered to pay up to 70% of new stadium costs — as a waste of taxpayer dollars. But Gregory's comments highlight the emotional undercurrents frequently at play in sports stadium funding debates across the country. Experts nearly unanimously agree that public subsidies for stadiums are a poor investment, but that hasn't slowed a wave of local and state spending for billionaire team owners. More taxpayer money benefits pro sports owners amid 'stadium construction wave' Washington, D.C., could spend more than $1 billion to move the Washington Commanders some seven miles from a suburb in Maryland to a new facility planned for the old RFK Stadium site, described by the team's controlling owner as the 'spiritual home' of the NFL franchise. Geoffrey Propheter, an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver who studies stadium deals, said these kinds of arguments ignore the economic reality of stadium subsidies. 'You're not talking economics. You're talking pure emotion,' he said. Despite mounds of evidence showing the public does not fare well on stadium investments, he said lawmakers and mayors still tout the potential for jobs and new tax revenues with stadiums and arenas. Oftentimes, teams and politicians stir fears about the possibility of losing franchises to another market to increase pressure, he said. But three of the most prominent stadium subsidy deals under consideration now — in Chicago, Kansas City and the district — involve teams looking to move within the same metro area. 'I would appreciate it if lawmakers were that transparent, and they're like, 'I don't care how much this costs, there's no price that's too high for us to pay to keep them here,'' Propheter said. But cities and states have more at stake than raw economics, said Irwin Kishner, a New York attorney who has represented pro teams in multiple stadium deals. He likened the stadium debate to those surrounding the Olympics: Research has found that host cities generally spend well in excess of the revenue generated by the games. But cities and nations still fiercely compete for the chance to host the high-profile event. 'It elevates the status of venues,' Kishner said. 'And I think it's very much the same thing with stadiums and arenas.' He said cities also face potential economic consequences of lost jobs and tax revenues if teams leave altogether. Oakland, California, for example, lost both its pro football and baseball teams to Nevada after local stadium talks fell apart. The NFL's Raiders now play in Las Vegas and MLB's A's are playing temporarily in West Sacramento, California, before moving into their under-construction stadium on the Vegas strip. 'What happened in Oakland is a classic example of what happens when a team doesn't get their building in the way they want it,' Kishner said. And those sorts of relocations can leave lasting marks, he said, pointing to the sour feelings that still persist in Brooklyn decades after MLB's Dodgers left for Los Angeles. Other cities have similarly iconic teams, such as the NFL's Chicago Bears. 'When push comes to shove, municipalities would be embarrassed to lose a team. I mean, could you imagine the Bears playing in St. Louis as an argument?' Kishner said. 'I think Chicago would have something to say about that in a very emotional way. And by the way, these things take generations to get past.' Currently, Chicago's stadium discussions are more localized. After first sharing plans to build a new stadium along Lake Michigan's shore in Chicago, the Bears are now pursuing a massive football stadium development in suburban Arlington Heights. Despite introducing various tax measures aimed to benefit megaprojects such as stadiums, Illinois lawmakers ended their session on May 31 with no action on the matter. My brain tells me it's not that big of a deal, but my heart and soul as a Chicagoan doesn't want them to leave. – Illinois Democratic state Rep. Kam Buckner Democratic state Rep. Kam Buckner, whose district includes parts of Chicago's South Side, said lawmakers have little appetite to invest heavily in stadiums. The MLS' Chicago Fire just announced plans to privately finance a new $650 million professional soccer stadium in the city's South Loop — the same area the MLB's White Sox are also eyeing as they explore a new baseball stadium. 'The days of widespread public money for private stadiums without public benefit — those days are over, and that is not just a sentiment in the state of Illinois. I think this is a sentiment across the country,' Buckner said. Still, he acknowledged the sway emotions can have in the matter. While the Bears leaving the city limits likely would not affect the region's economy, he said, it would still prove a blow to morale. 'My brain tells me it's not that big of a deal,' he said, 'but my heart and soul as a Chicagoan doesn't want them to leave.' Missouri's stadium debate has been simmering for years now: The Royals first announced plans in 2022 to move downtown from their stadium on the outskirts of the city. And the Chiefs — who share the sprawling stadium complex with the Royals — quickly followed with talks of wanting a new or renovated stadium. After voters in a county election last year soundly rejected extending a stadium sales tax to fund those plans, lawmakers across the border in Kansas passed legislation that would fund up to 70% of the costs of new stadiums. That measure expires at the end of June, pushing Missouri legislators to act. Neil deMause, a journalist who has written extensively about stadium subsidies, said such deadlines are arbitrary and meant to exact political pressure. While politicians once had plausible deniability about the pitfalls of stadium subsidies, the research is now overwhelmingly clear and well covered in the media, he said. (It's been nearly a decade since HBO's John Oliver dedicated an episode of his satirical news show to the folly of stadium finance.) Kansas v. Missouri stadium battle shows how states are reigniting border wars But politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to push stadium subsidies — whether they're touting the potential for wider real estate development or intangibles such as team pride and fears of losing franchises. 'It's this prescribed dance, where everybody sort of pretends to be doing due diligence, but at the same time, everybody knows it's going to happen,' deMause said. He said that appears to be the case in the nation's capital. In April, city and team officials for the Washington Commanders announced plans for a 65,000-seat stadium. The proposed deal, which must be approved by the full city council, would cost taxpayers some $1.1 billion over eight years. But deMause's analysis of the plan determined the public will be spending well in excess of that figure because of billions in free rent and hundreds of millions in property tax breaks. He estimates taxpayers will pay or forgo at least $7.5 billion on the deal. 'Everybody in and around the D.C. Council seems to be saying, 'Yeah, it sure is a lot of money, but the mayor really wants it, so it's going to happen. It's just a matter of whether or not we can improve it some,'' he said. 'It's a little bit like saying, 'World War II is going to happen — just try and keep the death toll down.'' Last week, Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser's office released a report it commissioned that projected the stadium would create billions in new economic output and local tax revenue in the coming decades — figures that were quickly disputed by skeptical economists and academics. Still, much of the district's stadium conversation has centered on intangibles such as hometown pride and nostalgia. Even NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell waxed about his childhood memories attending games at the old RFK Stadium at an April event announcing the deal. Sitting in front of a 'WELCOME HOME' banner at that event, the mayor said the RFK site was 'where they belong.' 'I want to start by saying welcome home,' she said. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump, pushing bounds of his office with L.A. deployment, faces test in court
WASHINGTON — The mission of President Trump's extraordinary deployment of U.S. Marines and National Guardsmen to Los Angeles depends on whom you ask — and that may be a problem for the White House as it defends its actions in court on Thursday. The hearing, set before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, will set off a rare test over the legality of a military deployment on American soil. While California has asked for a temporary restraining order against the government, a judicial decree ordering a full withdrawal would be extraordinary, scholars said. But so, too, was the deployment itself, raising the stakes for the judge entering Thursday's hearing. Breyer, a veteran of the bench appointed by President Clinton and the younger brother of Stephen Breyer, the former Supreme Court justice, could instead define the parameters of acceptable troop activity in a mission that has been murky from its start over the weekend. In an interview, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta told The Times that he was told that Trump's mission set for both the Marines and the National Guard in Los Angeles 'is to protect federal property, functions and personnel.' 'The property part may well be compliant with the Posse Comitatus Act,' Bonta said, referring to a landmark law passed after the Civil War prohibiting the use of U.S. troops to engage in local law enforcement. 'If all the Marines do is protect buildings, that might be compliant,' he added. 'But it needs to be made clear that they cannot go out into the community to protect federal functions or personnel, if that means the 'functions' of civil immigration enforcement conducted by the 'personnel,' ICE. That means they'll be going to Home Depots, and work sites, and maybe knocking on doors.' Trump told reporters Tuesday that without federal involvement, 'Los Angeles would be burning down right now,' suggesting their role was to confront violent rioters throughout the city. But that same day, Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot told The Times that Marines sent to L.A. County were limited in their authority and without arrest power, deployed only to defend federal property and personnel. The Los Angeles Police Department continues to lead the response to the protests. Still a third potential mission set emerged within 24 hours, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement posted a photo on Facebook indicating that National Guardsmen were accompanying its agents on the very immigration raids that generated protests in the first place. And White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Times that the president's primary motivation behind the federal show of force was to send a message to protesters — an effort to deter agitators in the crowd from resorting to violence. Clarifying the true nature and purpose of the deployment — whether to protect federal property, to supplement ICE raids, to quell unrest, or all of the above — will prove critical to the administration's success on Thursday. Breyer denied California's request for an emergency restraining order on Tuesday, instead giving both sides 48 hours to prepare their case for the hearing. 'He's the most well-regarded district judge in the United States,' said Robert Weisberg, a professor at Stanford Law School. 'He will be very meticulous in asking all of these questions.' Unprecedented though Trump's actions may be, signs of caution or restraint in his decision to refrain from invoking the Insurrection Act could ultimately salvage his mission in court, experts said. The Insurrection Act is the only tool at a president's disposal to suspend Posse Comitatus and deploy active-duty Marines on U.S. soil. While Trump and his aides have made a coordinated public effort to reference the L.A. protesters as insurrectionists, he has, so far, stopped short of invoking the act. The president instead invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which grants him the authority to federalize the National Guard. Even still, California argues that Trump has overstepped the law, which still requires directives to the Guard 'be issued through the governors of the States.' And the White House has suggested that Title 10 authority also justifies the Marine deployment. 'We expect an order from the court making clear what's lawful and what's unlawful, and part of that is making clear that the deployment of the National Guard by Trump is unlawful,' Bonta said. 'And so he might just strike down that deployment,' he added, 'returning the National Guard to the command of its appropriate commander-in-chief, the governor.' Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, said that Title 10 'requires a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion,' and inability of regular law enforcement authorities to execute the laws.' 'I would be shocked if a court determined that those conditions were met by what is actually happening in L.A. at the moment, as those of us living here know,' Arulanantham added. Yet, by relying on Title 10 authorities and by refraining from invoking the Insurrection Act, Trump could save himself from a definitive loss in court that would probably be upheld by the Supreme Court, Weisberg said. 'I do think that Trump is trying to take just one step at a time,' Weisberg said, 'and that he contemplates the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act, but it's premature.' 'There's always the possibility he's being rational,' he added. For Bonta, the case before Breyer is just the latest in a series of legal battles California has brought against the Trump administration — cases that have compelled the White House to lay out evidence, based on truth and facts, before seasoned judges. Moments before Bonta spoke with The Times, Leavitt told reporters in a briefing that 'the majority of the behavior that we have seen taking place in Los Angeles' has been perpetrated by 'mobs of violent rioters and agitators.' 'It's completely untrue and completely unsurprising,' Bonta responded. 'It's what the Trump administration — the press secretary, the secretary of Defense and the secretary of Homeland Security — it's what they've been on a full 24-hour campaign to try to do, to manufacture and construct a reality that's not actually true.' The LAPD and L.A. County Sheriff's Department, Bonta noted, have dealt with worse in the past, not just during major historic events such as the Rodney King riots of 1992 or the George Floyd protests of 2020, but after relatively routine annual events, such as the NBA Finals or the Super Bowl. 'There is absolutely no doubt that the National Guard was unnecessary here,' Bonta said, adding, 'They're using words like insurrection and emergency and rebellion and invasion, because those are the words in the statutes that would trigger what they really want. They want the president to be able to seize more power.' The must-read: 9-year-old Torrance Elementary student deported with father to HondurasThe deep dive: Newsom, in California address, says Trump purposely 'fanned the flames' of L.A. protestsThe L.A. Times Special: Brian Wilson, musical genius behind the Beach Boys, dies at 82 More to come,Michael Wilner —Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
